free-range politics, organic community

It Isn’t Men Against Women, It’s Theocracy Against Democracy

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Mon, 05/20/2019 - 8:47pm

In the current debate concerning the proliferation of anti abortion laws, I keep hearing how men want to control women’s bodies. But this argument is belied by the number of women who support these bills including the governor of Alabama who signed their bill into law almost as soon as it was passed by the legislature.

As a woman, albeit one who is no longer capable of baby making, I can’t help but wonder if the issue isn’t so much about men controlling women, but is instead a matter of those who want to see a theocracy established in the US. For years we have been hearing the claims that America is a Christian nation. This claim is ridiculous since the Constitution prohibits religious oaths and guarantees freedom of religion. Mere facts, though, cannot trump faith among these zealots.

Here in Georgia, our governor is not impressed by demonstrators. He has publicly expressed disdain for such efforts. He and the rest of the Georgia GOP, men and women, have the power to impose their will on the rest of us through voter suppression tactics reminiscent of Jim Crow.

The push toward theocracy is why I think impeaching Trump would be a bad, even dangerous, move. With zealot Mike Pence as president, I fear we could move even closer to what fundamentalist Christians, like those I knew in a homeschool group, have been hoping and praying for.

We can’t be distracted by issues that are not at the heart of things. We could lose our freedoms to people who claim to worship freedom as long as it’s their freedom to control others.

At the 1976 Republican National Convention, the party adopted an anti-abortion amendment as part of their platform, for primarily strategic reasons. The party’s leadership hoped to appeal to Catholics, a demographic which had traditionally voted Democratic, but who might be put off by growing cultural liberalism and who made up the core of the anti-abortion movement.[41] Over time, the anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform became one rallying point for a growing conservative religious coalition in the party, which drove out many pro-choice Republicans and led to a long-term shift in the party’s public image and identity.

This Republican strategy of wooing Catholics, in combination with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy (evangelicals), has created one heck of a monster.

anti abortion activists are women. It does say that Roman Catholics are the majority in the anti abortion movement, but also notes evangelicals of various Protestant groups are also involved. As religion is primarily involved in the movement, I consider this to be a move toward theocracy. Facts are distorted in order to justify the religious view. A dangerous way to go IMO.

At the 1976 Republican National Convention, the party adopted an anti-abortion amendment as part of their platform, for primarily strategic reasons. The party’s leadership hoped to appeal to Catholics, a demographic which had traditionally voted Democratic, but who might be put off by growing cultural liberalism and who made up the core of the anti-abortion movement.[41] Over time, the anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform became one rallying point for a growing conservative religious coalition in the party, which drove out many pro-choice Republicans and led to a long-term shift in the party’s public image and identity.

This Republican strategy of wooing Catholics, in combination with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy (evangelicals), has created one heck of a monster.

up

22 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

@Lily O Lady
I think some of the "oligarchy" would prefer a theocracy. They think it's easier to control people under a theocracy. Look at what the Catholic hierarchy did in Europe during the Middle Ages.

anti abortion activists are women. It does say that Roman Catholics are the majority in the anti abortion movement, but also notes evangelicals of various Protestant groups are also involved. As religion is primarily involved in the movement, I consider this to be a move toward theocracy. Facts are distorted in order to justify the religious view. A dangerous way to go IMO.

@Lily O Lady
Is basically Catholics, 23%, and Evangelicals, 22.5%. As many people identify as No Religion as either Evangelical or Catholic, 23.1%. That's up 266% since 1991. About 100 churches die every week...The old mainline Protestant churches are on the way to extinction.

I think that's why there is such a big push to make Trump the dictator of a Theocracy...

anti abortion activists are women. It does say that Roman Catholics are the majority in the anti abortion movement, but also notes evangelicals of various Protestant groups are also involved. As religion is primarily involved in the movement, I consider this to be a move toward theocracy. Facts are distorted in order to justify the religious view. A dangerous way to go IMO.

up

11 users have voted.

—

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

About 100 churches die every week...The old mainline Protestant churches are on the way to extinction.

I think that's why there is such a big push to make Trump the dictator of a Theocracy...

When a religion can no longer command hearts and minds -- when love fails -- religions tend to resort to the abuse of State power to compel compliance. This is the sign that the religion is dying.

Truth be told, I'd be surprised if there were any Abrahamics out there except Jews, mellow small Christian denominations, and Rastafarians by 2100 or so. Islam, it seems, is especially bent on destroying itself. (Yes, Virginia, "Islamist" terrorists and Wahhabis are the enemies of Islam, not its friends!)

#2.1 Is basically Catholics, 23%, and Evangelicals, 22.5%. As many people identify as No Religion as either Evangelical or Catholic, 23.1%. That's up 266% since 1991. About 100 churches die every week...The old mainline Protestant churches are on the way to extinction.

I think that's why there is such a big push to make Trump the dictator of a Theocracy...

up

3 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

anti abortion activists are women. It does say that Roman Catholics are the majority in the anti abortion movement, but also notes evangelicals of various Protestant groups are also involved. As religion is primarily involved in the movement, I consider this to be a move toward theocracy. Facts are distorted in order to justify the religious view. A dangerous way to go IMO.

It's not just the left that is 'fervent in their beliefs' as organized religion. The right is just as guilty of this as the left is. I would say that they were there first and then the left joined them.
IMO there is a big difference between organized religion and truthful spirituality. One keeps people under its thumb and the other is more free.

At the 1976 Republican National Convention, the party adopted an anti-abortion amendment as part of their platform, for primarily strategic reasons. The party’s leadership hoped to appeal to Catholics, a demographic which had traditionally voted Democratic, but who might be put off by growing cultural liberalism and who made up the core of the anti-abortion movement.[41] Over time, the anti-abortion plank of the Republican platform became one rallying point for a growing conservative religious coalition in the party, which drove out many pro-choice Republicans and led to a long-term shift in the party’s public image and identity.

This Republican strategy of wooing Catholics, in combination with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy (evangelicals), has created one heck of a monster.

@HenryAWallace
When Republicans flipped the South from Democrat to Republican, a lot of evangelicals came aboard because it was the South. It's difficult to separate the South from religion--it's part of the culture. I agree the racist appeal was part of Nixon's Southern Strategy.

could it be because of their religious views? Or part of it? Some women who have had one become some of the strongest anti abortionists for some reason.

The push toward theocracy is why I think impeaching Trump would be a bad, even dangerous, move. With zealot Mike Pence as president, I fear we could move even closer to what fundamentalist Christians, like those I knew in a homeschool group, have been hoping and praying for.

Yep. This would be scary to have Pence as president. There is a huge support network behind this push towards theocracy. Any time gays get a break on things the Christian Right is right there saying that there is a war on Christianity and Christians here. I could understand people who are against it if they were against everything that made women's lives worse. The Alabama governor who said that "all life is precious" would have made more sense if she hadn't signed an execution order right after signing the bill. It's the hypocrisy I can't stand.

up

27 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

heartbeat bill was passed and when it was signed into law. They only protect “innocent” life l suppose they would say. Never mind that not everyone ever executed has actually been guilty.

could it be because of their religious views? Or part of it? Some women who have had one become some of the strongest anti abortionists for some reason.

The push toward theocracy is why I think impeaching Trump would be a bad, even dangerous, move. With zealot Mike Pence as president, I fear we could move even closer to what fundamentalist Christians, like those I knew in a homeschool group, have been hoping and praying for.

Yep. This would be scary to have Pence as president. There is a huge support network behind this push towards theocracy. Any time gays get a break on things the Christian Right is right there saying that there is a war on Christianity and Christians here. I could understand people who are against it if they were against everything that made women's lives worse. The Alabama governor who said that "all life is precious" would have made more sense if she hadn't signed an execution order right after signing the bill. It's the hypocrisy I can't stand.

up

17 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

as I said in Friday's EBs. The pro life folks have no problem with our wars of aggression and our death penalty. The military is a force for good don't ya know and people who are put to death deserve it because they did the crime. Same with people shot by cops. They first did something wrong and then they didn't listen to the cops. Everything is neatly tied up in black and white for them.

as I said in Friday's EBs. The pro life folks have no problem with our wars of aggression and our death penalty. The military is a force for good don't ya know and people who are put to death deserve it because they did the crime. Same with people shot by cops. They first did something wrong and then they didn't listen to the cops. Everything is neatly tied up in black and white for them.

up

11 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

as I said in Friday's EBs. The pro life folks have no problem with our wars of aggression and our death penalty. The military is a force for good don't ya know and people who are put to death deserve it because they did the crime. Same with people shot by cops. They first did something wrong and then they didn't listen to the cops. Everything is neatly tied up in black and white for them.

But the Catholic Church sure could do a hella lot more addressing poverty and other issues that affect the poor. By this I mean that the Vatican and the priests don't have to have such rich vestments and all the trappings in the Vatican and church. The Vatican has trillions tied up in art, real estate and other mortal things.

Then there's its support for the Nazis and other unsavory characters over the millennia.

I am pro-choice, but I can certainly face up to the fact that abortion kills a human being.

My thoughts exactly. And I strongly feel that if anyone wants to force women to have children then they should also want them to have access to health care and support in all aspects after the baby is born.

Hopefully people read article Joe posted in tonight's EBs about the declining birth rates and the timing of the anti abortion bills. If you haven't read it you should.

could it be because of their religious views? Or part of it? Some women who have had one become some of the strongest anti abortionists for some reason.

The push toward theocracy is why I think impeaching Trump would be a bad, even dangerous, move. With zealot Mike Pence as president, I fear we could move even closer to what fundamentalist Christians, like those I knew in a homeschool group, have been hoping and praying for.

Yep. This would be scary to have Pence as president. There is a huge support network behind this push towards theocracy. Any time gays get a break on things the Christian Right is right there saying that there is a war on Christianity and Christians here. I could understand people who are against it if they were against everything that made women's lives worse. The Alabama governor who said that "all life is precious" would have made more sense if she hadn't signed an execution order right after signing the bill. It's the hypocrisy I can't stand.

up

4 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

there'd be no baby-killing if they just simply made abortion illegal. All the women who would otherwise have abortions would instead happily carry their babies to term like God intended. Aw how sweet. What happens when they start to do research on what actually happens in places where abortion is illegal?

up

22 users have voted.

—

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

We all know that abortions have always been performed whether or not they are against the law at the particular time and location. Those who would like to eliminate reproductive choice are not uniquely insulated from that knowledge. If nothing else, it's been a main or subsidiary story line in any number of US films and television series.

Laws against murder, theft, adultery, etc. have existed since before the Bible. No doubt, laws deter some crimes by some individuals who simply don't break laws. However, laws have yet to eradicate murder, theft, adultery, littering or anything else that laws may prohibit. Rather, laws expressly direct and/or empower government to punish those who break laws.

there'd be no baby-killing if they just simply made abortion illegal. All the women who would otherwise have abortions would instead happily carry their babies to term like God intended. Aw how sweet. What happens when they start to do research on what actually happens in places where abortion is illegal?

@HenryAWallace
I know at least half a dozen people that I would shoot. And when I was a teenager only the death penalty stopped me. So it does deter some, but obviously not all.
The less than seven year sentence handed to the Chicago cop convicted of shooting an unarmed man sixteen times who was fleeing the police is less than the typical burglary sentence.

I had lunch with my hard right gun collecting 85 year old lifelong Republican friend last week. He was appalled at that sentence, reminding me that another cop had to restrain him from reloading and shooting even more. My friend is a law and order guy, but he really means it. it's not a cover for authoritarianism.
BTW: People are always surprised that we are friends. But we mutually decided that the other was a good guy unfortunately very politically mistaken. And who is to say that we are not both mistaken? His family were small businessmen who went bankrupt during the Great Depression. He blamed it on Roosevelt not allowing them to cut prices. He curses the name of Roosevelt, but no longer around me. as I told him, "In my family, Roosevelt was like a god. I won't have you running him down."

We all know that abortions have always been performed whether or not they are against the law at the particular time and location. Those who would like to eliminate reproductive choice are not uniquely insulated from that knowledge. If nothing else, it's been a main or subsidiary story line in any number of US films and television series.

Laws against murder, theft, adultery, etc. have existed since before the Bible. No doubt, laws deter some crimes by some individuals who simply don't break laws. However, laws have yet to eradicate murder, theft, adultery, littering or anything else that laws may prohibit. Rather, laws expressly direct and/or empower government to punish those who break laws.

No doubt, laws deter some crimes by some individuals who simply don't break laws.

#4.1
I know at least half a dozen people that I would shoot. And when I was a teenager only the death penalty stopped me. So it does deter some, but obviously not all.
The less than seven year sentence handed to the Chicago cop convicted of shooting an unarmed man sixteen times who was fleeing the police is less than the typical burglary sentence.

I had lunch with my hard right gun collecting 85 year old lifelong Republican friend last week. He was appalled at that sentence, reminding me that another cop had to restrain him from reloading and shooting even more. My friend is a law and order guy, but he really means it. it's not a cover for authoritarianism.
BTW: People are always surprised that we are friends. But we mutually decided that the other was a good guy unfortunately very politically mistaken. And who is to say that we are not both mistaken? His family were small businessmen who went bankrupt during the Great Depression. He blamed it on Roosevelt not allowing them to cut prices. He curses the name of Roosevelt, but no longer around me. as I told him, "In my family, Roosevelt was like a god. I won't have you running him down."

@HenryAWallace
But that's not how they see it. Remember John Winthrop, and his invocation of the "city on a hill" in Matthew 5:14 in a speech made in 1630? Well what was the standard recipe for the Massachusetts Bay colonists? Step 1: loaf off of the native peoples Step 2: slaughter the native peoples Step 3: establish the shining city on a hill upon their land. Never mind that they pretty much had to kill anyone who defected to the native peoples (since it was so tempting -- this story is covered in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), and that life on the shining city on a hill could only be made palatable through large quantities of alcohol ingestion (this was the point of Johnny Appleseed). Well, never mind any of that. It's a shining city on a hill, a utopia. And there will be no abortions in our utopia; Jeezus said so.

We all know that abortions have always been performed whether or not they are against the law at the particular time and location. Those who would like to eliminate reproductive choice are not uniquely insulated from that knowledge. If nothing else, it's been a main or subsidiary story line in any number of US films and television series.

Laws against murder, theft, adultery, etc. have existed since before the Bible. No doubt, laws deter some crimes by some individuals who simply don't break laws. However, laws have yet to eradicate murder, theft, adultery, littering or anything else that laws may prohibit. Rather, laws expressly direct and/or empower government to punish those who break laws.

up

10 users have voted.

—

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

for the reasons stated in my prior post. IMO, too much said, both fiction and non-fiction, about "back alley" abortions and the infamous hanger abortions for anyone to assume that anti-abortion laws eradicated abortion. Books, magazines, films, etc. as well as political debate. So, we just disagree on that one.

Forgive me, but I am not seeing the connection between, on the one hand, Winthrop's "city on a hill" speech given as people were preparing to come from England to live in "the colonies" and, on the other hand, whether or not the religious right realizes that laws prohibiting abortion didn't/don't eradicate abortions.

Matthew 5:14 provides:

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

(KJV)

The point of Winthrop's speech/sermon was that about to be colonists needed to behave themselves or God would punish them.

Winthrop warned his fellow Puritans that their new community would be "as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us", meaning, if the Puritans failed to uphold their covenant with God, then their sins and errors would be exposed for all the world to see: "So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world".

#4.1 But that's not how they see it. Remember John Winthrop, and his invocation of the "city on a hill" in Matthew 5:14 in a speech made in 1630? Well what was the standard recipe for the Massachusetts Bay colonists? Step 1: loaf off of the native peoples Step 2: slaughter the native peoples Step 3: establish the shining city on a hill upon their land. Never mind that they pretty much had to kill anyone who defected to the native peoples (since it was so tempting -- this story is covered in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), and that life on the shining city on a hill could only be made palatable through large quantities of alcohol ingestion (this was the point of Johnny Appleseed). Well, never mind any of that. It's a shining city on a hill, a utopia. And there will be no abortions in our utopia; Jeezus said so.

for the reasons stated in my prior post. IMO, too much said, both fiction and non-fiction, about "back alley" abortions and the infamous hanger abortions for anyone to assume that anti-abortion laws eradicated abortion. Books, magazines, films, etc. as well as political debate. So, we just disagree on that one.

Forgive me, but I am not seeing the connection between, on the one hand, Winthrop's "city on a hill" speech given as people were preparing to come from England to live in "the colonies" and, on the other hand, whether or not the religious right realizes that laws prohibiting abortion didn't/don't eradicate abortions.

Matthew 5:14 provides:

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

(KJV)

The point of Winthrop's speech/sermon was that about to be colonists needed to behave themselves or God would punish them.

Winthrop warned his fellow Puritans that their new community would be "as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us", meaning, if the Puritans failed to uphold their covenant with God, then their sins and errors would be exposed for all the world to see: "So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world".

up

3 users have voted.

—

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

connection or other to your claim that the religious right assumes that laws against abortion will result in a world without abortion. However, as my prior post to you indicated with some specificity, I don't know what connection you believe exists.

Forgive me, but I am not seeing the connection between, on the one hand, Winthrop's "city on a hill" speech given as people were preparing to come from England to live in "the colonies" and, on the other hand, whether or not the religious right realizes that laws prohibiting abortion didn't/don't eradicate abortions.

Your response, for which I thank you, however does not address that. Moreover, the way that you believe the religious right imagines world without abortion is a claim by you, with which I've been disagreeing. But thanks, anyway.

#4.1.2.1 in case you missed it -- was between the city on a hill and the imagined world without abortion.

The point of Winthrop's speech/sermon was that about to be colonists needed to behave themselves or God would punish them.

True, but the meaning of the biblical phrase "shining city on a hill" as used by Gov. Winthrop has been co-opted by the neocons and neolibs, who have distorted the meaning so as to support American exceptionalism.

It started with Reagan, who used it in his 1980 campaign and later speeches as president. More recently, Obama has referred to it.

for the reasons stated in my prior post. IMO, too much said, both fiction and non-fiction, about "back alley" abortions and the infamous hanger abortions for anyone to assume that anti-abortion laws eradicated abortion. Books, magazines, films, etc. as well as political debate. So, we just disagree on that one.

Forgive me, but I am not seeing the connection between, on the one hand, Winthrop's "city on a hill" speech given as people were preparing to come from England to live in "the colonies" and, on the other hand, whether or not the religious right realizes that laws prohibiting abortion didn't/don't eradicate abortions.

Matthew 5:14 provides:

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

(KJV)

The point of Winthrop's speech/sermon was that about to be colonists needed to behave themselves or God would punish them.

Winthrop warned his fellow Puritans that their new community would be "as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us", meaning, if the Puritans failed to uphold their covenant with God, then their sins and errors would be exposed for all the world to see: "So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world".

up

4 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

IIRC, that info is at the link in my post upthread in which I discussed Winthop's city on a hill speech/sermon, but I can't swear to it. I do know for certain that I learned that JFK (or his speechwriters) had used it when he ran for POTUS a few years ago from one wiki article or another. I am sure many others have used it as well. My own opinion is that Reagan used it in an attempt to emulate/echo a President whose name, by 1980 was all over the USA, schools, streets, post offices, airports, etc.

My only question was exactly how citing Winthrop's city on a hill speech/sermon supports the claim that the religious right believes that outlawing abortion will end abortions. I am still not getting that.

The point of Winthrop's speech/sermon was that about to be colonists needed to behave themselves or God would punish them.

True, but the meaning of the biblical phrase "shining city on a hill" as used by Gov. Winthrop has been co-opted by the neocons and neolibs, who have distorted the meaning so as to support American exceptionalism.

It started with Reagan, who used it in his 1980 campaign and later speeches as president. More recently, Obama has referred to it.

@Cassiodorus
that some people truly believe that abortion is murder? It has nothing to do with some vision you write about.

I am pro-choice, but I can certainly face up to the fact that abortion kills a human being.

There are plenty of pro-life people who believe that civil rights should be extended to the life in the womb. I thought years and years ago, that as humans began to recognize animal and environmental rights more and more, sooner or later, they would become pro-life. It is just a natural trajectory (to me). And lo and behold, that trajectory seems to be happening.

there'd be no baby-killing if they just simply made abortion illegal. All the women who would otherwise have abortions would instead happily carry their babies to term like God intended. Aw how sweet. What happens when they start to do research on what actually happens in places where abortion is illegal?

@dfarrah
"Are you unable to realize that some people truly believe that the Earth is flat?"

So, okay, fine, people believe that abortion is murder. I'll concede that point. If we're getting picky, we can ask this question: about those people who believe that abortion is murder -- what do they think of miscarriages? How about fetuses that endanger the lives of their mothers? What does the belief system say about that? Or fetuses that are carried to term and die as babies? How about fetuses who are brought to term and who can't be saved in their separate lives because our screwed-up system of political economy won't support their mothers? Or what happens when we can manipulate genes to create human organs that can live outside of bodies -- if we terminate those organs, is that murder?

My point is this. People believe all sorts of things. Outcomes matter.

#4 that some people truly believe that abortion is murder? It has nothing to do with some vision you write about.

I am pro-choice, but I can certainly face up to the fact that abortion kills a human being.

There are plenty of pro-life people who believe that civil rights should be extended to the life in the womb. I thought years and years ago, that as humans began to recognize animal and environmental rights more and more, sooner or later, they would become pro-life. It is just a natural trajectory (to me). And lo and behold, that trajectory seems to be happening.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

@Cassiodorus
is not remotely analogous to abortion. It is an unquestionable fact that a life is being stopped.

Your gish gallop notes a lot of very difficult situations. The fact remains that some people think unborn babies should have civil rights, and as you know, civil rights are not always black and white when they collide.

#4.2 "Are you unable to realize that some people truly believe that the Earth is flat?"

So, okay, fine, people believe that abortion is murder. I'll concede that point. If we're getting picky, we can ask this question: about those people who believe that abortion is murder -- what do they think of miscarriages? How about fetuses that endanger the lives of their mothers? What does the belief system say about that? Or fetuses that are carried to term and die as babies? How about fetuses who are brought to term and who can't be saved in their separate lives because our screwed-up system of political economy won't support their mothers? Or what happens when we can manipulate genes to create human organs that can live outside of bodies -- if we terminate those organs, is that murder?

My point is this. People believe all sorts of things. Outcomes matter.

@dfarrah
And the logical extension of that is that appendectomies and such should be outlawed because potentially each "murdered" cell can become a human being.
I do believe that a fetus is a human being, as a matter of fact, but I don't believe a zygote or a blastula is. It may be logical to call a zygote a human being, but something is fallacious in that logic.

#4.2.1 is not remotely analogous to abortion. It is an unquestionable fact that a life is being stopped.

Your gish gallop notes a lot of very difficult situations. The fact remains that some people think unborn babies should have civil rights, and as you know, civil rights are not always black and white when they collide.

because it has been preached to them for a very long time, and more frenetically since Roe v. Wade. Had churches and religious leaders been indoctrinating their flocks that reproductive decisions should be up to the mother and father or only the mother, not government or religion, I believe with all my heart and mind that the religious right congregations would have adopted that position.

And, yes, I, too, see how they could accept the murder view as God's will, even though the Bible never mentions abortion, while identifying as sin everything from gossip (according to Solomon, gossip is the sin most hated by God!), to "pulling out" during intercourse, to mixing wool and linen.

In any event, the Bible directs believers how to conduct themselves, not to be control freaks in the lives of others or to get laws enacted. In the NT, a parable ascribed to Jesus seems to direct believers that God is the one who will separate the wheat from the tares. And then there is that famous OT instruction, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and the several OT and NT admonitions against judging others and making yourself perfect before you go after others. (And of course, humans cannot make themselves perfect, so that is basically an admonition to Christians to STFU and mind their own beeswax.)

The only place I've found in the Bible wherein words attributed in the Bible to God or Jesus direct anyone to attempt to control the behavior of others was an OT direction that everyone in Israel should observe the sabbath "including the stranger within your gate." (I assume that means that even non-Jews who were in Israel on the Sabbath were to be made to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest.)

I have little doubt someone with a mind so to do could torture some Biblical language to say otherwise, but they can't reconcilie their interpretations with the very specific and clear language of the Biblical provisions.

#4 that some people truly believe that abortion is murder? It has nothing to do with some vision you write about.

I am pro-choice, but I can certainly face up to the fact that abortion kills a human being.

There are plenty of pro-life people who believe that civil rights should be extended to the life in the womb. I thought years and years ago, that as humans began to recognize animal and environmental rights more and more, sooner or later, they would become pro-life. It is just a natural trajectory (to me). And lo and behold, that trajectory seems to be happening.

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “ ‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “ ‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “ ‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.

In short, if my wife cheats on me, I'm supposed to take her to the priest and get her an abortion.

because it has been preached to them for a very long time, and more frenetically since Roe v. Wade. Had churches and religious leaders been indoctrinating their flocks that reproductive decisions should be up to the mother and father or only the mother, not government or religion, I believe with all my heart and mind that the religious right congregations would have adopted that position.

And, yes, I, too, see how they could accept the murder view as God's will, even though the Bible never mentions abortion, while identifying as sin everything from gossip (according to Solomon, gossip is the sin most hated by God!), to "pulling out" during intercourse, to mixing wool and linen.

In any event, the Bible directs believers how to conduct themselves, not to be control freaks in the lives of others or to get laws enacted. In the NT, a parable ascribed to Jesus seems to direct believers that God is the one who will separate the wheat from the tares. And then there is that famous OT instruction, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and the several OT and NT admonitions against judging others and making yourself perfect before you go after others. (And of course, humans cannot make themselves perfect, so that is basically an admonition to Christians to STFU and mind their own beeswax.)

The only place I've found in the Bible wherein words attributed in the Bible to God or Jesus direct anyone to attempt to control the behavior of others was an OT direction that everyone in Israel should observe the sabbath "including the stranger within your gate." (I assume that means that even non-Jews who were in Israel on the Sabbath were to be made to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest.)

I have little doubt someone with a mind so to do could torture some Biblical language to say otherwise, but they can't reconcilie their interpretations with the very specific and clear language of the Biblical provisions.

up

5 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

@SnappleBC
which bible is that? I hope the Martin Luther German bible doesn't say this like that. Sorry to say that I never read the bible (other than some short passages as a teenager) and can't take the words literally.

My chosen verse for my confirmation was this one and I still think it's one of truest.

There are many version in the translations of various bibles in English and German, but I like the original old German Lutheran the best. Matthew 7:14.
Never listen to anyone but your own guts, (and even not to some godly words, brought to you by some folks who think they know what God wants for or from you) when you consider an abortion. It is nobody´s business to comment on another woman's decision.

This discussion seems not to be my cup of tea. Sorry that the text of your comment triggered my reaction.

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing. 16 “ ‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “ ‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.” 23 “ ‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.

In short, if my wife cheats on me, I'm supposed to take her to the priest and get her an abortion.

Just so I am totally clear, I think that the most fundamental of all "property rights" is the right to one's own body. I think the decision about abortion is entirely and solely up to the woman in question. Frankly, I don't even think doctors should get a vote.

Now that my personal position is clearly stated, I was just being amused that the ONE place in the bible that abortion is mentioned, it is pro-abortion.

#4.2.2.1
which bible is that? I hope the Martin Luther German bible doesn't say this like that. Sorry to say that I never read the bible (other than some short passages as a teenager) and can't take the words literally.

My chosen verse for my confirmation was this one and I still think it's one of truest.

There are many version in the translations of various bibles in English and German, but I like the original old German Lutheran the best. Matthew 7:14.
Never listen to anyone but your own guts, (and even not to some godly words, brought to you by some folks who think they know what God wants for or from you) when you consider an abortion. It is nobody´s business to comment on another woman's decision.

This discussion seems not to be my cup of tea. Sorry that the text of your comment triggered my reaction.

up

4 users have voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

@SnappleBC
That may be, but if she has a life partner she should consider his opinion and make him part of the process, or their relationship will not go well. I can't think of anything more damaging to a relationship than, "I'm killing this thing you put into me." unless, of course, she can convince him that she is taking the right course, to save their other children for example, or "the poor thing is so damaged it will be in pain for it's whole life."
Partners don't make decisions of this magnitude without bringing the other partner into it. I even discussed career moves and going back to school with my wife and she could have vetoed my plans instead of telling me to go ahead.

Just so I am totally clear, I think that the most fundamental of all "property rights" is the right to one's own body. I think the decision about abortion is entirely and solely up to the woman in question. Frankly, I don't even think doctors should get a vote.

Now that my personal position is clearly stated, I was just being amused that the ONE place in the bible that abortion is mentioned, it is pro-abortion.

And I've thought about what rights the male ought to have in this situation. I'd love to say that the male gets a vote but that puts women into the forced incubation business. Now... if we someday develop artificial wombs then I'd be perfectly willing to demand that women go through some [relatively] safe and unobtrusive procedure to extract the fetus. But as much as I wish men had some say in this, the whole "womb thing" just makes that a non-starter right now.

Insofar as the pragmatics of a happy and healthy relationship, none of these questions would even arise in such a situation. My wife and I make virtually all decisions jointly.

#4.2.2.1.1.1
That may be, but if she has a life partner she should consider his opinion and make him part of the process, or their relationship will not go well. I can't think of anything more damaging to a relationship than, "I'm killing this thing you put into me." unless, of course, she can convince him that she is taking the right course, to save their other children for example, or "the poor thing is so damaged it will be in pain for it's whole life."
Partners don't make decisions of this magnitude without bringing the other partner into it. I even discussed career moves and going back to school with my wife and she could have vetoed my plans instead of telling me to go ahead.

up

1 user has voted.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

And I've thought about what rights the male ought to have in this situation. I'd love to say that the male gets a vote but that puts women into the forced incubation business. Now... if we someday develop artificial wombs then I'd be perfectly willing to demand that women go through some [relatively] safe and unobtrusive procedure to extract the fetus. But as much as I wish men had some say in this, the whole "womb thing" just makes that a non-starter right now.

Insofar as the pragmatics of a happy and healthy relationship, none of these questions would even arise in such a situation. My wife and I make virtually all decisions jointly.

up

1 user has voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

And I've thought about what rights the male ought to have in this situation. I'd love to say that the male gets a vote but that puts women into the forced incubation business. Now... if we someday develop artificial wombs then I'd be perfectly willing to demand that women go through some [relatively] safe and unobtrusive procedure to extract the fetus. But as much as I wish men had some say in this, the whole "womb thing" just makes that a non-starter right now.

Insofar as the pragmatics of a happy and healthy relationship, none of these questions would even arise in such a situation. My wife and I make virtually all decisions jointly.

because it has been preached to them for a very long time, and more frenetically since Roe v. Wade. Had churches and religious leaders been indoctrinating their flocks that reproductive decisions should be up to the mother and father or only the mother, not government or religion, I believe with all my heart and mind that the religious right congregations would have adopted that position.

And, yes, I, too, see how they could accept the murder view as God's will, even though the Bible never mentions abortion, while identifying as sin everything from gossip (according to Solomon, gossip is the sin most hated by God!), to "pulling out" during intercourse, to mixing wool and linen.

In any event, the Bible directs believers how to conduct themselves, not to be control freaks in the lives of others or to get laws enacted. In the NT, a parable ascribed to Jesus seems to direct believers that God is the one who will separate the wheat from the tares. And then there is that famous OT instruction, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and the several OT and NT admonitions against judging others and making yourself perfect before you go after others. (And of course, humans cannot make themselves perfect, so that is basically an admonition to Christians to STFU and mind their own beeswax.)

The only place I've found in the Bible wherein words attributed in the Bible to God or Jesus direct anyone to attempt to control the behavior of others was an OT direction that everyone in Israel should observe the sabbath "including the stranger within your gate." (I assume that means that even non-Jews who were in Israel on the Sabbath were to be made to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest.)

I have little doubt someone with a mind so to do could torture some Biblical language to say otherwise, but they can't reconcilie their interpretations with the very specific and clear language of the Biblical provisions.

Do you believe that the people who have been in power for the past few decades, and still are, are interested at all in the expansion of human rights?

What rights await the baby as it emerges from the womb?

What rights await it when it reaches the age of majority?

Are we in a world where the phrase "human rights" means anything outside the ethical imaginations of some people?

#4 that some people truly believe that abortion is murder? It has nothing to do with some vision you write about.

I am pro-choice, but I can certainly face up to the fact that abortion kills a human being.

There are plenty of pro-life people who believe that civil rights should be extended to the life in the womb. I thought years and years ago, that as humans began to recognize animal and environmental rights more and more, sooner or later, they would become pro-life. It is just a natural trajectory (to me). And lo and behold, that trajectory seems to be happening.

up

6 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
that more people are recognizing more rights for more people, and people are recognizing animal rights and environmental rights. I also think science has contributed to the greater regard for the pre-born, since we know what happens when.

#4.2.3 that more people are recognizing more rights for more people, and people are recognizing animal rights and environmental rights. I also think science has contributed to the greater regard for the pre-born, since we know what happens when.

I'm not saying that these rights are accessible by all by any means.

up

1 user has voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

I think all that is a load of shit designed to make them feel better about the fact that they are bullying people.

there'd be no baby-killing if they just simply made abortion illegal. All the women who would otherwise have abortions would instead happily carry their babies to term like God intended. Aw how sweet. What happens when they start to do research on what actually happens in places where abortion is illegal?

up

4 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

@janis b
The students in comp classes are often allowed to write argumentative essays on topics of their choice. Some of them choose to write upon "why abortion should be illegal." This topic can be stopped if it is caught in time.

@Cassiodorus
the topic should be suppressed? Am I interpreting you correctly?

#5.1.1 The students in comp classes are often allowed to write argumentative essays on topics of their choice. Some of them choose to write upon "why abortion should be illegal." This topic can be stopped if it is caught in time.

#5.1.1 The students in comp classes are often allowed to write argumentative essays on topics of their choice. Some of them choose to write upon "why abortion should be illegal." This topic can be stopped if it is caught in time.

However, for the sake of accuracy, the Constitution of the US does not prohibit religious oaths. If it did, every Presidential inaugural oath, where every modern President fecklessly adds, "So help me God," to the oath could occasion a lawsuit.

In a number of direct and indirect ways, of course, the Constitution indicates that the Framers wanted to keep religion and the federal government separate, but that is not one of them. You may be thinking of something that could be described as a prohibition against a religious test for a Presidential candidate.

@HenryAWallace@HenryAWallace
The Constitution bans religious tests, which to me says that there is no requirement to be a Christian or anything else for that matter.

However, for the sake of accuracy, the Constitution of the US does not prohibit religious oaths. If it did, every Presidential inaugural oath, where every modern President fecklessly adds, "So help me God," to the oath could occasion a lawsuit.

In a number of direct and indirect ways, of course, the Constitution indicates that the Framers wanted to keep religion and the federal government separate, but that is not one of them. You may be thinking of something that could be described as a prohibition against a religious test for a Presidential candidate.

up

7 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

The establishment Clause certainly prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. I think that may be a stronger argument against, "The US is a Christian nation." But, that is when you are "preaching to the converted." Evangelicals who have heard their pastor preach otherwise are unlikely to be persuaded.

#6#6
The Constitution bans religious tests, which to me says that there is no requirement to be a Christian or anything else for that matter.

The Constitution prohibits a religious test only for POTUS. It does not prohibit all religious tests.

False. All religious tests for Federal public office are prohibited and have been so as long as the Constitution's been in force.

The exact text:

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

-- Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 3, still in forcesource

The passage specifically states "any Office or public Trust under the United States". This means that the States were subject to this Clause for their Offices, too, before the Civil War Amendments (13th through 15th) were created. That's right, the States are prohibited from requiring a religious test for public office, and the States which exclude atheists from their ballots (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) are indeed in full violation of the Constitution.

The establishment Clause certainly prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. I think that may be a stronger argument against, "The US is a Christian nation." But, that is when you are "preaching to the converted." Evangelicals who have heard their pastor preach otherwise are unlikely to be persuaded.

up

7 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

I do believe there is truth that it is men against women. Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government. When will women stop trying to be human beings? They are "hosts" that raise kiddies. Period. They are not about life in any way. Love the fetus, hate the child, but raise that damn kid regardless of your situation, circumstances. Just stay out of the workplace where it is a man's world!

I do believe this is changing and that the Christians of the world have great influence, as well. However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

up

4 users have voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

@Raggedy Ann
Another one that I think most leave out is that there's a group among these assholes that actually believes in the whole 'White Genocide' nonsense. The online Atheist community joined that shit like white on rice.

I do believe there is truth that it is men against women. Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government. When will women stop trying to be human beings? They are "hosts" that raise kiddies. Period. They are not about life in any way. Love the fetus, hate the child, but raise that damn kid regardless of your situation, circumstances. Just stay out of the workplace where it is a man's world!

I do believe this is changing and that the Christians of the world have great influence, as well. However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

up

6 users have voted.

—

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.

#7 Another one that I think most leave out is that there's a group among these assholes that actually believes in the whole 'White Genocide' nonsense. The online Atheist community joined that shit like white on rice.

up

2 users have voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

exists among some black people as well. I've had plenty of black men tell me that I supported choice because I wanted to exterminate black people from the face of the earth.

#7 Another one that I think most leave out is that there's a group among these assholes that actually believes in the whole 'White Genocide' nonsense. The online Atheist community joined that shit like white on rice.

up

1 user has voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

I do believe there is truth that it is men against women. Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government. When will women stop trying to be human beings? They are "hosts" that raise kiddies. Period. They are not about life in any way. Love the fetus, hate the child, but raise that damn kid regardless of your situation, circumstances. Just stay out of the workplace where it is a man's world!

I do believe this is changing and that the Christians of the world have great influence, as well. However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
over my 66 years of observing male behavior. I know it is a very general statement and that there are exceptions, but we need to get away from the male dominated society and become a female dominated society. If you think it is sexist, I can't stop you from how you think.

signing their bill into law much faster than Georgia’s male governor signed our bill into law? Many Catholic and fundamentalist Christian women oppose abortion. Do their husbands make them believe that? That hasn’t been my experience.

#7.2
over my 66 years of observing male behavior. I know it is a very general statement and that there are exceptions, but we need to get away from the male dominated society and become a female dominated society. If you think it is sexist, I can't stop you from how you think.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

signing their bill into law much faster than Georgia’s male governor signed our bill into law? Many Catholic and fundamentalist Christian women oppose abortion. Do their husbands make them believe that? That hasn’t been my experience.

up

5 users have voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

movement, I think it could hurt our argument to put the onus on men. You are entitled to your opinion of course.

I have been noticing the women standing behind those supporting these anti abortion laws as well as women like the governor of Alabama. These images seem to weaken the argument that men are responsible. Again YMMV.

#7.2.1.1
isn't a factor. I think it is. However, I think our male dominated society is the greater danger to women. It's my opinion. You are welcome to disagree, it's still my opinion.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

movement, I think it could hurt our argument to put the onus on men. You are entitled to your opinion of course.

I have been noticing the women standing behind those supporting these anti abortion laws as well as women like the governor of Alabama. These images seem to weaken the argument that men are responsible. Again YMMV.

up

1 user has voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

@Raggedy Ann
Forgive my utopian 1960's ideas of equality. One sex must dominate. One race must dominate. One generation must dominate. I see why the DNC is so successful.

#7.2
over my 66 years of observing male behavior. I know it is a very general statement and that there are exceptions, but we need to get away from the male dominated society and become a female dominated society. If you think it is sexist, I can't stop you from how you think.

@Raggedy Ann
In pre-civilization times that was the way to gain access to women and the choice cuts of meat. It is present in every mammalian species that I can think of.
Which reminds me that wild horses have two leaders. A stallion who dominates breeding and engages in dominance fights and a lead mare who determines the direction of the herd and where they stop and graze.

By dominance a male can increase his breeding success but a female can't do it that way, she can only increase her breeding success by having helpers and a good pasture. A stallion for protection is good too. Evolution works by mathematics, not by morality.

@Raggedy Ann
Left to their own devices, women are quite capable of creating odious hierarchies; of greed; of status-seeking; of bigotry; of sadism; etc etc. Jeanne d'Arc was a religious fanatic who gloried in the burning of heretics, which renders an ironic tragedy her own immolation for the heretical crime of cross-dressing.

Whether men are running things or women are running things, the basic problem is that the worst people -- the narcissists, the sadists, the sociopaths, the psychopaths, the authoritarians -- tend to seek, obtain, and then abuse power. This, I suppose, is the motivation for the various pro-humanism anarchist philosophies (not to be confused with libertarianism, which sacrifices human wellbeing on an altar of the delusory abstractions of "property rights" and "individualism").

#7.2
over my 66 years of observing male behavior. I know it is a very general statement and that there are exceptions, but we need to get away from the male dominated society and become a female dominated society. If you think it is sexist, I can't stop you from how you think.

up

5 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

You've been accused, in this very thread, of being sexist and of being a man-hater. Now, I know better than that, and I respectfully submit that I know you better than that, Raggedy Ann.

But reading this that you wrote:

Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government.

reminded me of where our real problem lies: with dominance addicts of both sexes.

This attitude is being planted in the minds of working-class men by those, men and women alike, who beLIEve, falsely, that it is in anyone's true interests to have women and men at each other's throats. It is these people who perpetrate the nonsense beatific bovine excreta that any dominance of one sex or gender over any other has any positive value of any kind. With the pecking-order systems we now have in place, were we to go to a female-dominant society, the women doing the dominating wouldn't be the peace-loving nurturers you envision (and that most women are); rather, we'd get women like Golda Meir and Hillary Clinton deciding war and peace while the reproductive rights of all women would be decided by the very women who are the principal driving force behind the anti-abortion/anti-choice movement now.

Two wrongs never make a right. And all sex/gender dominances in public life are wrong. They are to the human race what cancer is to a human body. And the treatment for cancer isn't some other form of cancer; it is, instead, to eliminate all the cancer, every cell, so it can't come back.

There is only one appropriate place for sex/gender dominance games: in the bedrooms of mutually consenting adults. Such things are less acceptable in public than plain old-fashioned fucking, at least in my humble opinion. Egalitarian public sex works for the bonobo chimpanzee, after all!

But then, what do I know? I have striven to conduct myself as a gentleman, a man of quality, all my life. And all persons of quality, whether women or men, struggle continually for complete equality. You've done so yourself, Raggedy Ann, right here in the pages of c99. But then, perhaps, we c99ers as a group are rather rich in quality folks. If that's the case, the thing to do is enlighten everyone else so they will become persons of quality, too. Then we'll have true sex/gender equality (and economic opportunity equality, too!) for the first time in history.

I do believe there is truth that it is men against women. Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government. When will women stop trying to be human beings? They are "hosts" that raise kiddies. Period. They are not about life in any way. Love the fetus, hate the child, but raise that damn kid regardless of your situation, circumstances. Just stay out of the workplace where it is a man's world!

I do believe this is changing and that the Christians of the world have great influence, as well. However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

up

11 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

You've been accused, in this very thread, of being sexist and of being a man-hater. Now, I know better than that, and I respectfully submit that I know you better than that, Raggedy Ann.

But reading this that you wrote:

Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government.

reminded me of where our real problem lies: with dominance addicts of both sexes.

This attitude is being planted in the minds of working-class men by those, men and women alike, who beLIEve, falsely, that it is in anyone's true interests to have women and men at each other's throats. It is these people who perpetrate the nonsense beatific bovine excreta that any dominance of one sex or gender over any other has any positive value of any kind. With the pecking-order systems we now have in place, were we to go to a female-dominant society, the women doing the dominating wouldn't be the peace-loving nurturers you envision (and that most women are); rather, we'd get women like Golda Meir and Hillary Clinton deciding war and peace while the reproductive rights of all women would be decided by the very women who are the principal driving force behind the anti-abortion/anti-choice movement now.

Two wrongs never make a right. And all sex/gender dominances in public life are wrong. They are to the human race what cancer is to a human body. And the treatment for cancer isn't some other form of cancer; it is, instead, to eliminate all the cancer, every cell, so it can't come back.

There is only one appropriate place for sex/gender dominance games: in the bedrooms of mutually consenting adults. Such things are less acceptable in public than plain old-fashioned fucking, at least in my humble opinion. Egalitarian public sex works for the bonobo chimpanzee, after all!

But then, what do I know? I have striven to conduct myself as a gentleman, a man of quality, all my life. And all persons of quality, whether women or men, struggle continually for complete equality. You've done so yourself, Raggedy Ann, right here in the pages of c99. But then, perhaps, we c99ers as a group are rather rich in quality folks. If that's the case, the thing to do is enlighten everyone else so they will become persons of quality, too. Then we'll have true sex/gender equality (and economic opportunity equality, too!) for the first time in history.

up

2 users have voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

@Raggedy Ann
above thread where someone pointed out that more women are pro-life than men?

Can you not entertain the notion that some people think abortion is murder?

If men are trying to control women, they sure are doing a piss poor job of it.

I do believe there is truth that it is men against women. Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government. When will women stop trying to be human beings? They are "hosts" that raise kiddies. Period. They are not about life in any way. Love the fetus, hate the child, but raise that damn kid regardless of your situation, circumstances. Just stay out of the workplace where it is a man's world!

I do believe this is changing and that the Christians of the world have great influence, as well. However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

politicians in what should be a medical decision. There are politicians who think an ectopic pregnancy can be re-implanted. There are politicians who believe in “consensual rape.” Better to keep such things between a woman and her doctor.

#7 above thread where someone pointed out that more women are pro-life than men?

Can you not entertain the notion that some people think abortion is murder?

If men are trying to control women, they sure are doing a piss poor job of it.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

the beat that they think they hear are still just a clump of cells that if removed from the body would die because there isn't any blood vessels that connects them to anything. If they want to go with the fetus is alive then it should be more formed. And I'm wondering how many doctors are scratching their heads over re implanting an ectopic pregnancy. "Gee I've been doing it wrong my entire career"
Doh!

politicians in what should be a medical decision. There are politicians who think an ectopic pregnancy can be re-implanted. There are politicians who believe in “consensual rape.” Better to keep such things between a woman and her doctor.

up

6 users have voted.

—

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

the beat that they think they hear are still just a clump of cells that if removed from the body would die because there isn't any blood vessels that connects them to anything. If they want to go with the fetus is alive then it should be more formed. And I'm wondering how many doctors are scratching their heads over re implanting an ectopic pregnancy. "Gee I've been doing it wrong my entire career"
Doh!

up

3 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

Not exactly. We could easily have had a female POTUS, who had already done terrible things in the world as Secretary of State, and every reason to think she would continue doing do as president. Her name is Hillary Clinton.

We currently have as CIA chief one Gina "Bloody Gina" Haspel.

We have female politicians and public servants who show no great signs of compassion, wisdom, and domesticity in their public acts. Betsy DeVos. Dianne Feinstein. Condoleeza Rice. Victoria Nuland. Etc.

As a second-wave feminist from the '70s, I'm all for women's equal rights, including reproductive freedom. I don't discount out of hand the existence of sexual politics.

But I have no illusions that a woman, just by being female, is more respectful of human rights than a man.

I've lived long enough to know that women can be just as horrible as men can be. That's because no matter what gender, we're all human beings with all the foibles that come with the territory.

We've already had matriarchy, and we've had patriarchy. At present, we have oligarchy.

In my opinion, it's time for something completely different.

I don't want women to be dominant. I don't want super-wealthy sociopaths to be dominant. This "dominancy" thing has worn out its welcome. It's not doing us any good. It's killing the human race and the planet.

I do believe there is truth that it is men against women. Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government. When will women stop trying to be human beings? They are "hosts" that raise kiddies. Period. They are not about life in any way. Love the fetus, hate the child, but raise that damn kid regardless of your situation, circumstances. Just stay out of the workplace where it is a man's world!

I do believe this is changing and that the Christians of the world have great influence, as well. However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

up

7 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

We've already had matriarchy, and we've had patriarchy. At present, we have oligarchy.

In my opinion, it's time for something completely different.

You're right. It's time to make anarchy (or at least minarchy) a workable option for our species. Social "order" based on pecking order flatly has to go.

Our bonobo chimpanzee biological cousins have this task mostly (but not entirely) accomplished. It's time we did the same.

Why? Your answer is excellent:

I don't want women to be dominant. I don't want super-wealthy sociopaths to be dominant. This "dominancy" thing has worn out its welcome. It's not doing us any good. It's killing the human race and the planet.

IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.

Not exactly. We could easily have had a female POTUS, who had already done terrible things in the world as Secretary of State, and every reason to think she would continue doing do as president. Her name is Hillary Clinton.

We currently have as CIA chief one Gina "Bloody Gina" Haspel.

We have female politicians and public servants who show no great signs of compassion, wisdom, and domesticity in their public acts. Betsy DeVos. Dianne Feinstein. Condoleeza Rice. Victoria Nuland. Etc.

As a second-wave feminist from the '70s, I'm all for women's equal rights, including reproductive freedom. I don't discount out of hand the existence of sexual politics.

But I have no illusions that a woman, just by being female, is more respectful of human rights than a man.

I've lived long enough to know that women can be just as horrible as men can be. That's because no matter what gender, we're all human beings with all the foibles that come with the territory.

We've already had matriarchy, and we've had patriarchy. At present, we have oligarchy.

In my opinion, it's time for something completely different.

I don't want women to be dominant. I don't want super-wealthy sociopaths to be dominant. This "dominancy" thing has worn out its welcome. It's not doing us any good. It's killing the human race and the planet.

up

4 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

separation of church and state seriously. The Democrats abandoned it long ago. When Obama had prayer meetings in the Oval office, it was considered benign. Now that Trump does it, it's a problem?

I have worked in the arena of promoting awareness of the coming theocracy (that is now here) for a long time and have seen most people avoid the discussion because it means talking about people's "deeply held beliefs". And what have we got for that avoidance? Mike Pompeo trying to set up the middle east for that apocalyptic second coming of Jesus war.

AND women are losing their reproductive rights.

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

up

15 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

too many in this country longed for a Christian version of the same thing. We may not be without sin, but it looks like we will fire the first rocket.

separation of church and state seriously. The Democrats abandoned it long ago. When Obama had prayer meetings in the Oval office, it was considered benign. Now that Trump does it, it's a problem?

I have worked in the arena of promoting awareness of the coming theocracy (that is now here) for a long time and have seen most people avoid the discussion because it means talking about people's "deeply held beliefs". And what have we got for that avoidance? Mike Pompeo trying to set up the middle east for that apocalyptic second coming of Jesus war.

AND women are losing their reproductive rights.

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

up

12 users have voted.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

I've got a better idea.

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

Non-aggressive religionists, both as individuals and as groups of them, would be spared punishments they don't deserve while those who are jerks would get all the disrespect they so rightly earn.

We've discussed this before. You are unquestionably right on one point: the assumptive, un-earned respect afforded all religion because it is religion really does need to go away. For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all. But the parishioners of a theoretical Saint John's Lutheran Church, who work to help all and harm none in the name of love, shouldn't suffer for Scientology's manifold crimes. Rather, it's Scientology which should do that.

Like I've said before, I'm theistic. But I'm not Wee Mama. (Truth be told, I want to know what the F got into her; she didn't use to be such a jerk.....)

separation of church and state seriously. The Democrats abandoned it long ago. When Obama had prayer meetings in the Oval office, it was considered benign. Now that Trump does it, it's a problem?

I have worked in the arena of promoting awareness of the coming theocracy (that is now here) for a long time and have seen most people avoid the discussion because it means talking about people's "deeply held beliefs". And what have we got for that avoidance? Mike Pompeo trying to set up the middle east for that apocalyptic second coming of Jesus war.

AND women are losing their reproductive rights.

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

up

4 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

I've got a better idea.

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

Non-aggressive religionists, both as individuals and as groups of them, would be spared punishments they don't deserve while those who are jerks would get all the disrespect they so rightly earn.

We've discussed this before. You are unquestionably right on one point: the assumptive, un-earned respect afforded all religion because it is religion really does need to go away. For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all. But the parishioners of a theoretical Saint John's Lutheran Church, who work to help all and harm none in the name of love, shouldn't suffer for Scientology's manifold crimes. Rather, it's Scientology which should do that.

Like I've said before, I'm theistic. But I'm not Wee Mama. (Truth be told, I want to know what the F got into her; she didn't use to be such a jerk.....)

One can easily read contemptuous comments on this site and other liberal sites about religion.

Not that the criticism is undeserved, but you can say the same thing about any group that adheres to a strong belief and wants to impose their ways of life on others.

IMO it is better to believe in complete freedom of religion (like the Consitution says) and freedom from religion (like the SC says) in order to live peaceably with one another. Or, put another way, your rights end where someone else's nose begins.

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

I've got a better idea.

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

Non-aggressive religionists, both as individuals and as groups of them, would be spared punishments they don't deserve while those who are jerks would get all the disrespect they so rightly earn.

We've discussed this before. You are unquestionably right on one point: the assumptive, un-earned respect afforded all religion because it is religion really does need to go away. For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all. But the parishioners of a theoretical Saint John's Lutheran Church, who work to help all and harm none in the name of love, shouldn't suffer for Scientology's manifold crimes. Rather, it's Scientology which should do that.

Like I've said before, I'm theistic. But I'm not Wee Mama. (Truth be told, I want to know what the F got into her; she didn't use to be such a jerk.....)

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

One way we could start to do that is by removing tax-exempt status from churches and other religious organizations. There's no reason why they shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, I think it should be contrary to the 1st Amendment to give religious organizations special treatment on the basis of religion.

For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all.

And yet the IRS granted tax exempt status to the con artists calling themselves the "Church of Scientology" several decades ago.

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

I've got a better idea.

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

Non-aggressive religionists, both as individuals and as groups of them, would be spared punishments they don't deserve while those who are jerks would get all the disrespect they so rightly earn.

We've discussed this before. You are unquestionably right on one point: the assumptive, un-earned respect afforded all religion because it is religion really does need to go away. For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all. But the parishioners of a theoretical Saint John's Lutheran Church, who work to help all and harm none in the name of love, shouldn't suffer for Scientology's manifold crimes. Rather, it's Scientology which should do that.

Like I've said before, I'm theistic. But I'm not Wee Mama. (Truth be told, I want to know what the F got into her; she didn't use to be such a jerk.....)

up

4 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

One way we could start to do that is by removing tax-exempt status from churches and other religious organizations. There's no reason why they shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, I think it should be contrary to the 1st Amendment to give religious organizations special treatment on the basis of religion.

For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all.

And yet the IRS granted tax exempt status to the con artists calling themselves the "Church of Scientology" several decades ago.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

And yet the IRS granted tax exempt status to the con artists calling themselves the "Church of Scientology" several decades ago.

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about! Why should these con artists get any respect at all? And yet, there are indeed religious individuals and groups who do things (help the poor, agitate for peace) to earn those tax exemptions.

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

One way we could start to do that is by removing tax-exempt status from churches and other religious organizations. There's no reason why they shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes. In fact, I think it should be contrary to the 1st Amendment to give religious organizations special treatment on the basis of religion.

For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all.

And yet the IRS granted tax exempt status to the con artists calling themselves the "Church of Scientology" several decades ago.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

who deserves the respect and who doesn't and criticizing religion. The religious right uses the bible to back up their POV. As an atheist I feel that the bible is an immoral source for guidance on life or as a basis for political opinion. Therefore, their positions are not morally based, have no respect for our secular Constitution and ignore or reject freethought and human rights.

Now if I criticize the bible as I think it should be I am also criticizing those people and churches that you are pointing to. And the fact that they revere the bible puts them in the position of enabling the religious right and their interpretation of the texts. It actually all comes down to interpretation. One side sees Jesus/God as benign, inclusive and loving and the other sees Jesus/God as aggressive, exclusive and judgmental. Both are in the texts. When I re-read the whole bible as an adult, I mostly saw the harsh judgmental side. Salvation in and of itself is judgmental and exclusive and makes no room at all for freethought. Jesus made it clear how ones gets to the kingdom, and it's not by being an atheist!

Wee Mama is now a greeter at DKos. Her job is to make sure people feel welcome and know the rules. The irony of this is just too delicious. Her actual impulse is to shut down any questioning of religious beliefs, as she demonstrated in her diary suggesting that non-believer statements about religion be held to a separation flagging/banning system. She's a mess. And yet her church (she is the priest) and she would be seen by the community as liberal/progressive. She is seen as a leader at Kos, someone who is admired for her kindness, etec. So I can't buy your characterization of "good" churches.

Besides, I object to the financial support religious institutions are afforded by our government. I should not have to pay more taxes because they pay less. It is essentially forcing me to support religious opinions, which flies in the face of what the founders described as the meaning of separation of church and state.

Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.

I've got a better idea.

Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.

Non-aggressive religionists, both as individuals and as groups of them, would be spared punishments they don't deserve while those who are jerks would get all the disrespect they so rightly earn.

We've discussed this before. You are unquestionably right on one point: the assumptive, un-earned respect afforded all religion because it is religion really does need to go away. For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all. But the parishioners of a theoretical Saint John's Lutheran Church, who work to help all and harm none in the name of love, shouldn't suffer for Scientology's manifold crimes. Rather, it's Scientology which should do that.

Like I've said before, I'm theistic. But I'm not Wee Mama. (Truth be told, I want to know what the F got into her; she didn't use to be such a jerk.....)

up

4 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

As I pointed out to you above, we've discussed all this before and at length. What I would consider "good churches" are those which take the good things about the Abrahamic tradition and practice them, while leaving the less desirable crap at the curb. And I've experienced the same, often. Your mileage differs considerably. And I recognize your right to be what you are, even if drastically different from me in regards to our opinion of religion.

This is why I'm not Wee Mama.

Personally, I see no reason why one cannot do the Bible as one would do Le Morte d'Arthur: take the good stuff to heart, and don't do like the dicks depicted therein. (The Introduction to Le Morte d'Arthur actually instructs the reader to do this.) And the good churches do it with the Bible, too, although most would never admit it.

I find less than no shame in this. But then, I'm just a Dirty Old Hippie Pagan; what do I know?

who deserves the respect and who doesn't and criticizing religion. The religious right uses the bible to back up their POV. As an atheist I feel that the bible is an immoral source for guidance on life or as a basis for political opinion. Therefore, their positions are not morally based, have no respect for our secular Constitution and ignore or reject freethought and human rights.

Now if I criticize the bible as I think it should be I am also criticizing those people and churches that you are pointing to. And the fact that they revere the bible puts them in the position of enabling the religious right and their interpretation of the texts. It actually all comes down to interpretation. One side sees Jesus/God as benign, inclusive and loving and the other sees Jesus/God as aggressive, exclusive and judgmental. Both are in the texts. When I re-read the whole bible as an adult, I mostly saw the harsh judgmental side. Salvation in and of itself is judgmental and exclusive and makes no room at all for freethought. Jesus made it clear how ones gets to the kingdom, and it's not by being an atheist!

Wee Mama is now a greeter at DKos. Her job is to make sure people feel welcome and know the rules. The irony of this is just too delicious. Her actual impulse is to shut down any questioning of religious beliefs, as she demonstrated in her diary suggesting that non-believer statements about religion be held to a separation flagging/banning system. She's a mess. And yet her church (she is the priest) and she would be seen by the community as liberal/progressive. She is seen as a leader at Kos, someone who is admired for her kindness, etec. So I can't buy your characterization of "good" churches.

Besides, I object to the financial support religious institutions are afforded by our government. I should not have to pay more taxes because they pay less. It is essentially forcing me to support religious opinions, which flies in the face of what the founders described as the meaning of separation of church and state.

up

2 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

for stories or passages or philosophies that fits one's own moral compass. However, that does not solve the other part of the problem. The bible still stands in western society as a revered book, which gives strength to the anti women, anti gay positions of the religious right. If you stood up, as a liberal christian and said, "hey, this book has some really bad parts in it and therefore can not be representative of any god", and you took that message public along with thousands of other liberal Christians, it would do a lot to pull the strength from the religious right. But that won't happen because basically you would be de-legitimizing your own faith.

So you are stuck with that book, and therefore also joined at the hip with the right wingers.

This is why I keep saying that we will not get rid of Christian dominionism in this country and be able to clean out our infested government until there are enough non-believers to tilt the political power see-saw.

As I pointed out to you above, we've discussed all this before and at length. What I would consider "good churches" are those which take the good things about the Abrahamic tradition and practice them, while leaving the less desirable crap at the curb. And I've experienced the same, often. Your mileage differs considerably. And I recognize your right to be what you are, even if drastically different from me in regards to our opinion of religion.

This is why I'm not Wee Mama.

Personally, I see no reason why one cannot do the Bible as one would do Le Morte d'Arthur: take the good stuff to heart, and don't do like the dicks depicted therein. (The Introduction to Le Morte d'Arthur actually instructs the reader to do this.) And the good churches do it with the Bible, too, although most would never admit it.

I find less than no shame in this. But then, I'm just a Dirty Old Hippie Pagan; what do I know?

up

2 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

This is why I keep saying that we will not get rid of Christian dominionism in this country and be able to clean out our infested government until there are enough non-believers to tilt the political power see-saw.

Owing to the urgency of several issues (ex.: climate change), we don't have the time it would take for the USA to become a majority atheistic country (if it ever will -- considerable reasonable doubt exists about that) before we clean out our Dominionist infested government. We need to do it now. And to do it now, we need the help of theists like me, who recognize Dominionism as what it is: evil. Indeed, a surprising number of believing Christians are coming around to that conclusion. And the ranks of the Pagan/Heathen theisms are growing at the fastest clip in their history, filling up with former Christians who just couldn't stomach the diet of Dominionist evil any more. (Again, like me.)

So it can and will be done. We can and will clean our institutions from this poison. And many who yet believe in God will help.

(Yet again, like me.)

I do know your mileage varies from mine, and I stand against any who would deprecate you or your ideas because you don't believe in any God. But if folks like you and me fail to work together on some of this stuff, we're fucking toast, believer and non-believer alike.

I remember when Wee Mama seemed to get the last sentence's point. I still want to know what the F happened to her. The Dominionist source cults -- the "non-denominational" fundagelical churches -- have some nasty psyops and associated agitprop going on, and Catholics often fall victim. (Still again, like me -- at 19.)

for stories or passages or philosophies that fits one's own moral compass. However, that does not solve the other part of the problem. The bible still stands in western society as a revered book, which gives strength to the anti women, anti gay positions of the religious right. If you stood up, as a liberal christian and said, "hey, this book has some really bad parts in it and therefore can not be representative of any god", and you took that message public along with thousands of other liberal Christians, it would do a lot to pull the strength from the religious right. But that won't happen because basically you would be de-legitimizing your own faith.

So you are stuck with that book, and therefore also joined at the hip with the right wingers.

This is why I keep saying that we will not get rid of Christian dominionism in this country and be able to clean out our infested government until there are enough non-believers to tilt the political power see-saw.

up

2 users have voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

actively for at least 15 years. I was on the national advisory committee for AU (Americans United for Separation of Church and State), an interfaith group, for 3 years. I know how to work with non-atheists and I done it. I'm also very active with the Freedom From Religion Foundation and have watched it grow from about 8,000 members to over 32,000 in only 7 years. As time has gone on and I have watched how these separation groups work, and the methods they use (these groups often join together in filing lawsuits), I have come to a current conclusion that the non-theist groups get more traction against the Right than the traditional interfaith groups. So that is what I based my statements on.... that religious beliefs cause those who try to battle the Right to be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

This is why I keep saying that we will not get rid of Christian dominionism in this country and be able to clean out our infested government until there are enough non-believers to tilt the political power see-saw.

Owing to the urgency of several issues (ex.: climate change), we don't have the time it would take for the USA to become a majority atheistic country (if it ever will -- considerable reasonable doubt exists about that) before we clean out our Dominionist infested government. We need to do it now. And to do it now, we need the help of theists like me, who recognize Dominionism as what it is: evil. Indeed, a surprising number of believing Christians are coming around to that conclusion. And the ranks of the Pagan/Heathen theisms are growing at the fastest clip in their history, filling up with former Christians who just couldn't stomach the diet of Dominionist evil any more. (Again, like me.)

So it can and will be done. We can and will clean our institutions from this poison. And many who yet believe in God will help.

(Yet again, like me.)

I do know your mileage varies from mine, and I stand against any who would deprecate you or your ideas because you don't believe in any God. But if folks like you and me fail to work together on some of this stuff, we're fucking toast, believer and non-believer alike.

I remember when Wee Mama seemed to get the last sentence's point. I still want to know what the F happened to her. The Dominionist source cults -- the "non-denominational" fundagelical churches -- have some nasty psyops and associated agitprop going on, and Catholics often fall victim. (Still again, like me -- at 19.)

up

2 users have voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

that religious beliefs cause those who try to battle the Right to be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

You haven't dealt with many Pagans, it would appear.

But then, I live in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the very metro in which Rousas Rushdoony built the Dominionist base camp. Under those conditions, my mileage will vary from yours considerably. Courtesy of the US Air Force Academy, we've had a taste of the Dominionists getting the control they want. And many of us find it icky indeed, believers and non-believers alike. (Ask Mikey Weinstein if you don't believe me!)

It's also proof that we need a real civilian foundational industry here. Being as dependent on the Department of "Defense" budget (and thereby Forever War) as we are is a Seriously Bad Idea for a host of reasons. But that's an issue which deserves its own essay.

actively for at least 15 years. I was on the national advisory committee for AU (Americans United for Separation of Church and State), an interfaith group, for 3 years. I know how to work with non-atheists and I done it. I'm also very active with the Freedom From Religion Foundation and have watched it grow from about 8,000 members to over 32,000 in only 7 years. As time has gone on and I have watched how these separation groups work, and the methods they use (these groups often join together in filing lawsuits), I have come to a current conclusion that the non-theist groups get more traction against the Right than the traditional interfaith groups. So that is what I based my statements on.... that religious beliefs cause those who try to battle the Right to be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."-- snoopydawg

By the way, I know Mikey Weinstein well. He spoke at an AU conference, and we have had some personal email conversations. He's a great guy... just tells it like it is. If you've read No Snowflake in an Avalance, you'll know what he and his family have been through to fight for separation of church and state.

I give monthly to MRFF and every year when they give you your year end statement, Mikey writes a personal note of thanks on it. I don't know where he gets the time to do that.

that religious beliefs cause those who try to battle the Right to be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

You haven't dealt with many Pagans, it would appear.

But then, I live in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the very metro in which Rousas Rushdoony built the Dominionist base camp. Under those conditions, my mileage will vary from yours considerably. Courtesy of the US Air Force Academy, we've had a taste of the Dominionists getting the control they want. And many of us find it icky indeed, believers and non-believers alike. (Ask Mikey Weinstein if you don't believe me!)

It's also proof that we need a real civilian foundational industry here. Being as dependent on the Department of "Defense" budget (and thereby Forever War) as we are is a Seriously Bad Idea for a host of reasons. But that's an issue which deserves its own essay.

up

1 user has voted.

—

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

That is correct in that the majority of the populace describe their religion as some flavor of Christianity. It certainly is NOT a Jewish nation or Muslim Nation or Buddhist Nation, nor even an Atheist Nation. It is not correct in the sense that they use it.
Was it Cheney who said, "freedom of religion means freedom to choose your religion, not the freedom to not have a religion"? Or as some rapper said, "Freedom of Speech, but watch what you say."

Would be very unhappy if we did. Just among the Christians, there are enormous differences in beliefs, strongly held beliefs.

Many of the original settlers of this country came here because their religious beliefs differed from the national religion of their home country. Catholics left Protestant countries. Protestants left Catholic countries. Jewish people fled persecution. I suspect Muslims, Buddists and others did the same.

than a shit show, to me. I was raised Catholic and couldn't get away from it fast enough. Control is all religion is. If folks don't have common sense to do the right thing, religion is built for them.

up

8 users have voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

@Raggedy Ann
but not everyone's experience with religion is like that. Many of the nicest people I've ever known were/are people whose faith meant a great deal to them, and many of them have been among the most accepting of others' differences. Not all churches have a rigid hierarchy.

than a shit show, to me. I was raised Catholic and couldn't get away from it fast enough. Control is all religion is. If folks don't have common sense to do the right thing, religion is built for them.

#11 but not everyone's experience with religion is like that. Many of the nicest people I've ever known were/are people whose faith meant a great deal to them, and many of them have been among the most accepting of others' differences. Not all churches have a rigid hierarchy.

up

1 user has voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

“I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land... I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.”

-- Frederick Douglass

#11 but not everyone's experience with religion is like that. Many of the nicest people I've ever known were/are people whose faith meant a great deal to them, and many of them have been among the most accepting of others' differences. Not all churches have a rigid hierarchy.

up

5 users have voted.

—

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

“I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land... I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.”

@Granma
She attended many churches of many sects. When she died we had the service in our town's Catholic Church which was still decorated from Christmas. The Choir was wonderful and the Catholics do ritual with panache. My cousin, Right-wing Protestant, railed at me for having the service there. "My Aunt was not Catholic!" No, but that was the church she attended. When she lived on the other side of town she attended a Bible church. When we lived in Virginia she attended a Methodist Church. She was not doctrinaire. As my sister noted, "She always attended the closest Christian Church." I realized that was true. Sometimes Catholic, sometimes Lutheran, et cetera. She wasn't part of the petty sectarian bickering. She had a simple faith in God and Jesus and that was that. She was a Christian. I don't feel that my hate-filled cousin is, no matter what she says.

#11 but not everyone's experience with religion is like that. Many of the nicest people I've ever known were/are people whose faith meant a great deal to them, and many of them have been among the most accepting of others' differences. Not all churches have a rigid hierarchy.

#11.1
She attended many churches of many sects. When she died we had the service in our town's Catholic Church which was still decorated from Christmas. The Choir was wonderful and the Catholics do ritual with panache. My cousin, Right-wing Protestant, railed at me for having the service there. "My Aunt was not Catholic!" No, but that was the church she attended. When she lived on the other side of town she attended a Bible church. When we lived in Virginia she attended a Methodist Church. She was not doctrinaire. As my sister noted, "She always attended the closest Christian Church." I realized that was true. Sometimes Catholic, sometimes Lutheran, et cetera. She wasn't part of the petty sectarian bickering. She had a simple faith in God and Jesus and that was that. She was a Christian. I don't feel that my hate-filled cousin is, no matter what she says.

@Granma
people do seem to be devout to some religion or other. And they have an inner peace that others simply don't have. I guess very spiritual people, not necessarily connected to a formal religion, are similar.

#11 but not everyone's experience with religion is like that. Many of the nicest people I've ever known were/are people whose faith meant a great deal to them, and many of them have been among the most accepting of others' differences. Not all churches have a rigid hierarchy.

@dfarrah
as much attached to a particular church as they are to living, in all their actions, what faith is supposed to be about. For them, that is what religion is. In Christian religions, that would probably be the Sermon on the Mount.

#11.1 people do seem to be devout to some religion or other. And they have an inner peace that others simply don't have. I guess very spiritual people, not necessarily connected to a formal religion, are similar.

@Granma
Absolutely, Granma. And he didn't deliver that message from the synagogue, either. He was just walking around talking to people.

#11.1.4 as much attached to a particular church as they are to living, in all their actions, what faith is supposed to be about. For them, that is what religion is. In Christian religions, that would probably be the Sermon on the Mount.

One might conclude from these statistics that fertilization is not itself a sacred, immutable act of God but rather nature's hit-or-miss way of continuing any given species. Spontaneous abortions occur when factors in the environment are not conducive to the continued development of the zygote or embryo or fetus. Patriarchs and some religions habitually refer to pregnancy as if the continuance of the fertilized egg were all that mattered to the outcome. The consent of the woman in whose body the fertilization occurs is given no consequence and bears no moral weight, or any other consideration, to the process. She may as well not exist as a sentient agent while she is pregnant.

However, it could easily be argued that the full consent and willingness of the woman to undertake gestation and birth and at minimum arrange for the parenting, and upbringing of a baby and child is, for human life, a necessary and vital factor for the continuance of a pregnancy. Human babies are not born into a vacuum; they are born into family arrangements, relationships with at minimum one dedicated caretaker, and they absolutely do need to be wanted and welcomed into those families.

To force women and girls to carry pregnancies against their will and to give birth to unwanted, unwelcome children is to reduce both women and babies to the status of cattle. This cannot be an optimal outcome for anyone -- not for the woman, not for the baby, not for the family, not for the society, and not, ultimately, for the civilization.

@laurel
and giving a more accurate and precise measurement, but I've heard this reported as a fact for decades. It's quite clear that the majority of fusions of sperm and ovum produce something that is never going to be viable. It's hardly surprising -- the molecular biology is mind-boggling. It's actually surprising that it ever works, at all.

One might conclude from these statistics that fertilization is not itself a sacred, immutable act of God but rather nature's hit-or-miss way of continuing any given species. Spontaneous abortions occur when factors in the environment are not conducive to the continued development of the zygote or embryo or fetus. Patriarchs and some religions habitually refer to pregnancy as if the continuance of the fertilized egg were all that mattered to the outcome. The consent of the woman in whose body the fertilization occurs is given no consequence and bears no moral weight, or any other consideration, to the process. She may as well not exist as a sentient agent while she is pregnant.

However, it could easily be argued that the full consent and willingness of the woman to undertake gestation and birth and at minimum arrange for the parenting, and upbringing of a baby and child is, for human life, a necessary and vital factor for the continuance of a pregnancy. Human babies are not born into a vacuum; they are born into family arrangements, relationships with at minimum one dedicated caretaker, and they absolutely do need to be wanted and welcomed into those families.

To force women and girls to carry pregnancies against their will and to give birth to unwanted, unwelcome children is to reduce both women and babies to the status of cattle. This cannot be an optimal outcome for anyone -- not for the woman, not for the baby, not for the family, not for the society, and not, ultimately, for the civilization.

up

7 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

but just to be nitpicky: it's perfectly possible for women to support the idea of men controlling women's bodies, as we've seen everywhere from women in Europe wanting to sell their daughters to marriage or a convent a few centuries ago, to women in Africa wanting to give their daughters clitorectomies, to our very own Phyllis Schlafly. Or our very own Hillary Clinton, for that matter (did you see the deal she was willing to make with the Repubs on abortion? It looked remarkably like Republican abortion policy circa 1983).

Actually, I bring this up not just to be nitpicky but because it gets at a common fallacy among the left that goes back a LONG way: not everyone among an oppressed group is going to want to change the status quo; lots of them won't. The right loves to bring this up, btw. I mean, just look at all the working-class people in this country who still believe that we live in a meritocracy. That presents a difficult challenge for the left, in that we both want to pursue an idea of justice and want to empower the people on the bottom of various hierarchies.

However, the difficulty of that challenge doesn't change the fact that there are certainly men who want to control women's bodies, many of them holding positions in the government. As for the establishment of a theocracy, I think it's both/and: one of the many reasons they want a theocracy is so that they can control women's bodies; there are many, many other reasons why they want a theocracy, some of which are probably more important to them than controlling women's bodies.

I sense a great pleasure in being able to control and bully, full stop, regardless of the target, coming off of these people.

up

7 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q